What really is Mao’s problem in DP

What really is Mao’s problem in DP

Background:

I had resisted the temptation to comment on the ongoing leadership wrangles in DP, but I realized that such an impulse was inevitable. The instability in DP affects all of us, but most important, DP is the barometer for reading the potential of change of regime in Uganda.

Before I start a disclaimer is in order. I have never been a DP Party member. In the past, however, I had the luxury to associate with some Party members – especially the DP current leaders. In addition, I have followed politics in Uganda since I was twelve years old. Although I feel a bit distanced from what goes on behind the scenes in these Parties, the leadership wrangles reveal that there is a lot of discontent going on.

It is important to declare that this piece is drawn from my introspection, decades-long observation, and information pieced together from various print sources and in-person conversation with leaders within DP and their associates. The purpose of this write up is to begin a long conversation to bridge gaps in explaining the difficulties we have in changing the regime in Uganda.

Several of the current crops of leaders in DP or those from the Social Democratic Party who recently re-joined their mother Party are our contemporaries. Our connections go back to the formative years of Young Democrats, and then working together to sweep Seeya to City Hall in Kampala as Mayor, against long time City Mayor, Yiga in the 1990s. I struggled with, for or against a subsequent crop of UYD leaders in the late 1990s at Makerere University  - on and off-campus - for leadership there Thus, the introspection comes from a very good place. This is not an academic piece.

What has been happening?

In the early 1990s, the influence of a young Norbert Mao was strong on many of us that I nearly joined the Uganda Young Democrats. Since my youths, I believe that power in society is experienced and demonstrated in action. The UYD was a vigorous group that appealed to my youthful energies when art 267 and others gagged political participation. Some of UYD leaders were visibly very intelligent. I still have high regard for many of them, to this date.  

I must hasten to say that through my studies, I have tried to set aside my ideological biases to learning the evolution of Uganda’s political organizations, including the Democratic Party. When UYD emerged, we were fully aware of its role in shaping the politics of Uganda since its inception, relative to other political organizations in Uganda.

My general impressions and assertions about DP are as follows; the DP was formed to address socio-political inequalities, most of which were generated and accentuated by the nature of the colonial state and its socio-economic setup. These contradictions were further complicated by the nature of the peasantry society that Uganda was – and remains so to this date. DP’s real problem could, therefore, be said to emerge from its inability to fully understand the state and its relations to the economy and the peasants. The second problem of DP is elitism stretched to the realms of activism. DP seemed permanently rooted in the ideology of social justice which has failed to gain traction in the post-colonial and neoliberal society. Their propensity for elitist politics has further alienated most of their leaders from the grassroots – mostly peasants. As such, DP has made little inroads in mobilizing its countryside support base since Uganda returned to multiparty democracy. Diabolically, DP’s propensity for elitist politics has also generated among them, very ignorant and opportunistic elites. The third problem is materialism and the fourth, the Achilles heel, is tribalism – ethnic-based social mobilization. These are DP's main diseases.

The permanent blemish

The evolution of DP from its inception reveals to us certain patterns of activism without a purpose. Most political parties are formed to vie for power by fronting specific policy options and ideological values. Unfortunately, political parties in Uganda lack such clarity of purpose. DP’s effort to exert itself in the prevailing political space qualifies them only as a political organization to a level of legacy holders and aimless activists, not power-seekers. With fairness of things, only UPC seemed to have fully understood the material relationship between the state, the economy and Uganda’s peasants in full. We could also say that UPC knew its role and prepared for it. We can conclude that DP has either lived past its shelve time and relevance or is living ahead of its time.

Why Baganda Catholic DPs reject Mao

The gist of this writeup is to attempt to explain logically, and to an extent, systematically, why Hon. Norbert Mao’s leadership has faced such rejection within his own Party. Is Mao the polarising figure or it is the nature of DP which is the polarising? This author observes that DP needs Mao more than Mao needs DP. Among all his adversaries, no one doubts Mao’s quality as a peace-loving leader, a catholic, a lawyer, intelligent, and an eloquent elite. But Mao is also an exceptionally clean politician, free from incumbrances of political corruption that haunts his contemporaries. At least, you have not heard Mao’s name mentioned in any scandals or corruption as a public trust holder. Mao’s qualities are, in fact, part of the reasons he is resented by a largely impulsive but also material driven colleagues from within his own party. Perhaps, Mao’s incorruptibility makes each one of them nervous and conflicted all the time!

Perspectives

In anthropology and such sciences, societies been understood from their emic and etic purviews. Purview is a scope or range of influence or concerns prevalent around or among a group. Emic purview represents the insiders’ perspectives of the subject of study -  how they view themselves, their opinion or concerns, and how they make that society alive, vigorous and self-sustaining. Etic purview is the opposite of that, what outsiders have come to know, appreciate, or conclude about the group under study.

From the emic purview, Mao himself belongs to the generation of the current crop of DP leaders, most of whom are lawyers, Catholics, materialists, and elitists. This group has also amassed wealth from their various roles either in influencing leadership or while in leadership around Kampala, Masaka, Wakiso, Mukono, etc. One of Hon. Mao’s problem is that he does not belong to this wealthy group and he not the source of their wealth. They despise Mao as a poor man and as someone whose integrity and principles subverts their continued wealth seeking - or bribe-taking in politics of DP.

Loyalty to Wealth or Meal Cards?

These people have loyalty to wealth such that their political ambition is not power or capturing state power, rather, accumulation of wealth. To them, wealth is the means to power and therefore their power is defined as possession, outside the realms of the state contestation. This view directly conflicts with Mao’s traditional approaches to politics. Mao has invested his time in ethical politics where he is trying to organize his party to contest and gain public trust or gain an advantage by cultivating dominating ideas. In that sense, Mao is seen as an ideas' merchant. His leadership is rejected by a highly materialist group who view Mao as a stumbling block because they neither appreciate nor interested in ideas or ideology. They only understand wealth and its privileges.

I know a lot of these young men who have never worked, looked for work or bothered about work. Many amassed wealth – land and rental properties in Kampala, Masaka and different places and have stable sources of income. Their wealth is working for them. They just want more. Their concerns are that this wealth is not expanding. They blame Mao for that. The newer democrats who are accustomed to their elders living in wealth have become equally irate to demand similar opportunities. I think Mao is aware of this and he named such a phenomenon “Meal Card politics”.

Opportunism within the Ranks

DP has lost several of its high-ranking officials to the ruling Party. The ease and frequency with which DP leaders dissociate to join the ruling regime outpace all other parties. Within this group, the state has allies – many sellouts. It seems that whatever they cannot get from Mao, they would rather get from the state. Only in DP where Museveni can appoint, pick or nominate a leader and their colleagues appreciate admiringly. This is different from the past DP of the 1970s.  We can now understand the competition since UPC has also joined this foray recently. To them, their goal is to create political capital to heighten individual opportunities of being appointed in government or get elected.  Once elected, their job is to hoard wealth. DP is not about a change in regime, rather the mission is to enhance personal or individual fortunes. Imagine that a sitting Party Chairman is appointed Ambassador and that is OK with the leadership. Part of Mao's woes is complacency to this kind of opportunism. Party members are appointed to serve as RDCs, Ministers, etc and it is OK. All others are now looking for that opportunity – either to get elected or appointed into wealth. Period.

Incorruptible Norbert Mao

Norbert Mao is not a corrupt man. At least, he does not tolerate political corruption. His legacy is cemented in Gulu District Council where he set a stable and peaceful district leadership when he was Chairman LC5 there. Gulu is now so focused on development that in the next decade, Gulu City will be one of the must-visit cities of Uganda. Gulu town has been declared the least corrupt district administration or local government unit for several years starting from the leadership of Mao and his successor.  Gulu’s success is not a coincidence. This kind of stability, ethical politics, and entrepreneurship of ideas are the factors that have unsettled Mao from his colleagues in DP.

Individualism in DP

DP is not about to offer a serious political threat to the State in its current disorganized state. Most feuding Party members converge on the idea of building a base of successful individuals within the part by collaborating with any existing regime. They have, from history, found no problem legitimizing a scandalous regime if its members are guaranteed the opportunity to break even. It is this overt mission of the DP within Buganda that the rest of the DPs from the countryside should pay attention and rally behind Mao. There may be exceptions within the DP’s Buganda Caucus, however, their undemocratic behaviours show that a few are in pursuit of good governance.

I will not spend much time discussing the ethnic divisionism in DP’s top echelon, which is their very potent chalice. It would waste our time and that of my readers. 

Going Forward

Instead, I would like to advise opposition leaders. There are leaders who have surrounded themselves with only poor followers, while some are captives of wealth seekers. Few members of this opposition are in genuine pursuit for power or good governance. There is. however, a logic to their approaches. Politics is about protecting the interests of the wealthy or grabbing the opportunity for resource sharing. The contradiction is that most of these people do not offer many resources for good governance. They spend their resources looking for more - hoarding.

Then we have the leaders surrounded by the poor lot. Most of the follows seek facilitations and benefit from their participation from that one leader. I think JPAM's brief stint in opposition to Museveni exemplifies this kind of leaders. This is a form of political bribery whose inevitability is made complex by the nature of poverty in the country. The quantitative and qualitative change that we anticipate in Uganda – the post-Museveni era - should be achieved through personal contributions. Surely, it will come at an expensive cost. If you must be bribed for your participation, to act or to mobilize one another, then you know that you are not ready for the change that you want.

Every change-agent ought to have his or her resources or means to inject into the struggle. A large disparate group is a threat to national security if properly aligned without depending on one leader for resources. Let everyone sell their goats to pay their taxes for the change they need.  Leaders should be proactive to surround themselves with resourceful persons, people they could trust, tap on, or expect to be able to mobilize resources as and when needed, and maximize its use towards the change they desire.

Conclusion

Uganda is at crossroads as whole with an immense crisis of loyalty and group cohesion. Everyone is in search of self-aggrandizement. This pursuit is dangerous because the conditions under which these agents of change operate seem to vibrate within a narrow arc of fortunes. If Museveni were to offer his audience, transport refund, money or a job today, all these fellows would immediately forget the bigger and chronic problem of joblessness and hopelessness that they suffer and pervades the country. They will stay in opposition to occupy space if they have no means. These groups use their voices in the opposition and exploit spaces they occupy in the opposition ranks to improve on their chances or price value in the market of conscience. There is no real commitment to good governance. Not from the Democratic Party of Uganda. I could be wrong, harsh or even uninformed. These are the trials of taking emic and etic views.

End.  

Ordinary Ugandans need the Rwanda Market

Rwanda-Uganda FEUD

Rwanda's closing of its border seems to have hurt Uganda's economy seriously. We may never be sure of the extent of the damage; however, Uganda seems to need Rwanda's market more than Rwanda needs Uganda's. Or, Rwanda’s economy is more resilient such that they could keep away from trading with Uganda.

There will be lessons learned from the border standoff on both sides, which should illustrate to us that having a good neighbor is great for the economy.

For whatever reasons the two leaders have a feud with each other, Rwanda's case is much clearer that one should not benefit from an economy that he is attempting to destroy or destabilize.

Rwanda has had complaints against Uganda – mostly that Uganda's security has illegally held Rwandan nationals and tortured some for spying for Rwanda. Many of us in Uganda do not understand this complaint. The difference between Rwandese and Ugandans, especially in the security circles is hard for us to tell. What we know is that most of the Ugandan army and security personnel are children and bazukulu of former Rwandese refugees in Uganda, most of whom helped Museveni shoot his way to power in 1986. President Kagame was one of them.

Further, “Rwandese” is a contrived tribe recognized in the 1995 Ugandan constitution. In fact, people of Rwanda or Ugandans of Rwandese origin seem to enjoy unfettered privileges and favours in Uganda than say, former Sudanese, Kenyans or Congolese refugees. In fact, most indigenous Ugandans do not have such luxuries in their own country as our cousins from Rwanda. At least, from the impression that the common Ugandan has.

As for Rwanda’s security concerns, Ugandans were mostly aware of a Ms. Charlotte Mukankuusi, a former Rwandan ambassador who abdicated duty and was later seen visiting Mr. Museveni in Uganda and was given a Ugandan Passport. We still do not know why she was privileged to that level.

Underneath all this brouhaha, the Daily Monitor of February 19, 2020, outlined a few security concerns that Rwanda has leveled against Uganda (read Museveni). Rwanda claims that Museveni is harbouring Rwandan dissidents, rebels and terrorists. These are serious allegations.

Both Mr. Museveni and his son have croaked about a potential source of an attack on Uganda. Mr. Museveni once warned that whoever was planning to destabilize Uganda to watch their backs because once he (Museveni) mobilizes his military resources, those people would be in trouble. Recently, his son tweeted that whoever tries to attack Uganda would face the full impact of the empire force.

The big question is, why would Uganda want to destabilize Rwanda? In fairness of things, Rwanda may be like Uganda on many fronts. However, Rwanda has set itself a stride away on its social policies to meaningfully eradicate poverty and reduce social inequalities; Rwanda has built a defined stable economy and recently Rwanda released it's first homemade (assembled) Volkswagen.

In short, Rwanda has made a more quantitative and qualitative socio-economic progress than Uganda within the same timeframe. Rwanda has done much better in managing rent-seeking or political corruption among its political elites and public services when compared to Uganda.

It seems President Kagame does not lie and despises liars. It is most likely that his accusation of Uganda has grains.

If Rwanda has a legitimate security concern, let the government of Uganda respond to these concerns so the borders are opened. I am sure that Museveni would not have rested for one second had Rwanda hosted or been seen to support Uganda rebels. I believe it is written somewhere in the Bible that do to others what you want done to you.

The feud between Kagame and his former mentor, Mr. Museveni is affecting ordinary Ugandans who draw their livelihood by trading in Rwanda's market.

End.  

It is Uganda’s culture that we are trading in the liberal market

NATIONAL DECEPTION

As a country, we have become accustomed to deception as a gateway to success. The target of the extortion is the developed western countries and donors who are paying for decisions that should be made voluntarily. The payment, though, is not in vain. It serves an imperialist or patronage purpose. In that case, the deception and patronage feed off each other in an atypical predatory-cum-symbiotic relationship in the liberal marketplace.

The level of deception in Uganda is stupefying. As a society, we have reached a point where we desire for privileges but never accept its responsibilities. To evade responsibility, we employ deception. But, the more succeeded through deception, the more we become powerless.

Ugandans have learned to put up faces under this phony Museveni-orchestrated liberal market which is full of duplicitous vendors but “empty stalls”. It is in the context of this market that Europeans, Americans, Russians, and Chinese buy our bad cultures and we sell to them our willingness to transform or abandon our “risky”, “outdated” or “primitive” traditions, cultures, identities, even faith.

Over the last decades, the west has been buying us out on many fronts, and we have been selling our cultures, traditions, and identities in that liberal market. Their goal is to speed us up on advances in Eurocentric and pan American type liberalism.

It is not hard to understand why America and Europe are keenly paying us out of our cultures, traditions, beliefs, and autonomy. The West has always acted as the patron of our civilization. If they can pay to sustain their imperialist agenda, then why not? The irony is that every sociocultural item that they buy us out of, and we sell, these people carefully repackaged and preserve at home.

For instance, America pays for us to end cultural practices that are deemed risk averse such as female genital mutilation, the same practice they would call surgical vaginal design. Do we need Americans to bribe us to stop hurting women in a place most sensitive? Well, the trend has been consistent. Once they pay, we immediately end the practice. They have been paying for us to dig and use pit latrines, bury our dead ones, treat our ailments, and many have even been paid to visit a health center!

There is a danger of dependence on this harmful cultural purchase melee. American pay us to plan our families, to use condoms, to take HIV medications, to make clean water available. We have reached a point where the whole country is paid to live or die, how to live and how to die; and what we should do when still alive.

It is comprehensible that liberalism strives to undermine the state to privilege market dynamism. The Ugandan case, however, is a new phenomenon because even the state is now paid to undermine itself. The state itself is captive to an illegitimate government that is constituted by a sham democracy that is paid for by the donor. The so-called experts who validate and legitimize the government are also donor-funded.  

Why should USAID, UKAID or EU pay our people to stop mutilating or pulling their labia? For them, women are “vajazzling”, undergoing vaginal rejuvenation or labiaplasty and others. I get it. It is the procedure and the practice that are risky.

It is not surprising that the recent government intervention to stop over pulling or elongating young women's labia is also donor-funded. The donor also funds our men so that they stop beating their wives (gender-based violence), pay men to begin taking care of their children and to send their children to donor-funded schools.

The more they pay, the more we slip backward and become helpless. Yet, those who engineer this social helplessness judge their success by how much their deceptive or folly enterprises have paid off. These are elites in small private sector agencies, and some linked to the discredited state functionaries in their folly to bring every aspect of social life in Uganda into the liberal market.

I am not even sure whether such a labial maneuver is a popular culture with serious sexual value, but it is on the market stall for selling to a donor. 

Unfortunately, you will not find a lot of manufactured goods on the “stalls” of our liberal market. It is our cultures, traditions, identities, and autonomy that we are trading. We have lagged in every competitive aspect of the global liberal agenda. We have no industries, lag in scientific and technological innovations, lack control over our natural resources and environment; we cannot produce or add value to our agricultural produces enough to access North American, European, Asian and other markets. We have retreated to our quarters to wait for the market spoils to reach us. Even our begging hands have retracted at the elbow.

The sad part is, in the west, liberalism has made it possible for individuals to circumcise, mutilate, elongate, design and sell their bodies or body parts, redesign their private parts, change their sexes, deliver in tubes or through surrogates, die and get cremated.

The Europeans and Americans are already preserving our historical artifacts in their museums, holding our history and knowledge at ransom. In every Zoo, you find more tropical animals indigenous to Africa than you could find in some national parks in Africa.

In our deceptive ways, it is our indigeneity, the very essence of our “Africanness”, that we are trading in the liberal market.

End.